Why Don’t the American People Want to Tax the Rich? Oh Wait, They Do.

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Actually, Americans do want to “soak the rich.”

The New York Times has apost by Neil Irwin headlined “Why Americans Don’t Want to Soak the Rich.” Irwin suggests a couple of different answers to this question, depending on your ideological point of view:

If you’re conservative, a compelling answer might be this: Americans are seeking less redistribution because they have come to their senses. … If you’re a liberal, the answer might be more like this: Americans have been hoodwinked by conservative politicians and media outlets, and have come to view redistribution as a dirty word because they don’t recognize the ways it benefits them.

I would suggest a third answer, though: Americans do want to “soak the rich.”

There’s something of a sleight-of-hand here, as Irwin asserts that

Americans’ views on whether the government should work to redistribute income—to tax the rich, for example, and funnel the proceeds to the poor and working class—have, depending on which survey answers you look at, either been little changed, or shifted toward greater skepticism about redistribution.

He doesn’t cite any examples of these surveys showing either little change or greater skepticism, but when I look at polling over time on taxing the wealthy, what’s striking to me is how consistently popular it is. Gallup has asked 17 times since 1992 whether upper-income people pay too much, too little or their fair share of federal taxes, and every time a majority has said they pay too little. Only twice–in 2010 and 2011–have less than 60 percent said they thought the rich were not paying enough federal taxes.

The same series of Gallup polls found people saying that lower-income and middle-income people were paying either their fair share or too much in taxes. Corporations, like the wealthy, were seen as paying too little, by an even wider margin—only twice in 11 repetitions of the question did less than 66 percent say corporate taxes were not high enough.

And the Gallup results are no outlier. An AP/GfK poll from February found 68 percent saying that wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes. Politifact cited a handful of polls, with findings that range from 59 percent to 72 percent, in support of Paul Krugman’s claim that “large majorities support higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthy.”

And it’s not just taxes on the wealthy; on the relatively rare occasions when they’re asked to pick a side in the class conflict, the American people generally choose the left side of the field:

“The income gap between wealthy Americans and those who are less well off”: 51 percent called it “a major problem,” while 15 percent said it was “not a problem” (ABC News/Washington Post, 1/12-15/15)

“Should the government do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor in this country?”: 55 percent say yes (CBS News, 1/9-12/15)

“The government should work to substantially reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor”: 66 percent agree (CNN/ORC, 1/31-2/2/14)

“Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair, or do you feel that the money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among more people?”: 62 percent called for more redistribution (CBS News, 1/17-21/14)

“How much, if anything, should the government do to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else?”: 69 percent said “a lot” or “some”; 26 percent said “not much” or “nothing at all” (Pew, 1/15-19/14)

So how does Irwin get away with claiming there is “flat or declining support for redistribution”? Part of it, as I said, is by not citing any actual polls; if he did, I suspect that even those that show “declining support” would still be indicating a high level of support, undermining the whole point of the column.

Another trick is to segue from (unnamed) polls to politicians’ platforms—as if both are equally valid methods of gauging public opinion: “It’s not just public opinion polls, either. It shows up in the actual policies espoused by candidates for office and enacted by Congress.”

A more on-point topic for a column would be, “Why Politicians Don’t Soak the Rich—Even Though Voters Want Them To?” Clearly, the billions of dollars that flow to candidates from the wealthy are a major factor. But I wouldn’t underestimate the role of hoodwinking by corporate media outlets—especially those owned by billionaires who have no desire to be soaked.

The wealthy already pay a 33% income tax. The just dont pay it because if they are that rich they can afford a team of lawyers to reduce the amount.The only people that get screwed by hire taxes are hardworking middle class people. I refuse to support any candidate the supports raising taxes in any form.

Posted by jake101goodale on 2017-09-05 14:09:33

I think I have a better shot at being a billionaire someday, then I have at getting Hillary (or Bernie, or any politician) to give up their money and coming down to my level. I'm not rich and never have been. But I don't want to be dependent on others, and I don't want someone putting their foot on my neck (or anyone else's neck) and saying, "If you make more, we are going to take it away from you." I would like a shot at succeeding. So I'd rather have a shot at being as successful as Trump. Socialism will never give anyone that chance (except its leaders). Wish you could hear the stories my in-laws tell from growing up in the USSR. Kids just don't know, so they romanticize it, thanks to their college professors (who live in their own minds and ideology). But sooner or later, it always ends with inequality and firing squads. It's a ruse, and eventually a heartache (and I don't mean hurt feeling) for everyone, comrade.

Posted by givemethemic on 2016-02-23 16:50:59

They don't need to pay more, just eliminate all the loopholes and tax shelters. If Exxon, Mitt Romeny et al. paid the same 20-25% on all income(yes investment, interest, etc) as most of us middle class types do, the budget would be right in no time. Despite overwhelming popularity to do such, our corporate/wealthy sponsored politicians will never touch this third rail. It's the same on immigration. Most want changes but our politicians know that if we were to truly get tough on it, the American economy would likely go belly up as we have come to rely on the cheaper labor pool.

Posted by JSherry on 2015-05-05 08:41:53

We have a “Poverty Crisis”. 40 years our elected leaders have been raining money on the rich, corporations and Wall Street. We are worse off since ALEC Think Tank and NORQUEST NO NEW TAXES PLEDGE and PAID FOR POLITICIANS. We need to rain money on the people – Medicare for all, Social Security for all, and $15.00 minimum wage with full benefits. Democrats will win big time ifthey start addressing the “Poverty Crisis”.

1. Record number of long term unemployment (93 million) 2.Record number on food stamps (47 million) 3. Lowest home ownership since 1994! 4. Record high debt (18.4 million) up 45% 5. Record high rents $788. Per month 6.Record number 18-34 yr. old living with parents, up 60%. 7. Medium income for18-34 yr. olds fallen 22%.8. Record high student debt (1 trillion)9. Record high black unemployment 12% 10. Record high poverty level (16.5%)11. Record % students living in poverty (50%). The numbers are staggering: US is ‘world leader’ in child poverty http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0...

Democrats’ No. 1 Job: Remind Voters That American Wages Have Flatlined The minimum wage was $2.90 in 1979. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $9.38 today instead of the actual $7.25, which is a 23 percent decline. http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

2. Make Obamacare into Medicare for ALL, Single Payer - New study: Single payer healthcare could save 1.8 trillion over 10 years http://www.dailykos.com/.../-N......

3. Make Social Security, Social Security for all. Remove the cap and tap the wealthy to support a Social Security program for all. http://www.nytimes.com/.../on-......

STOP RAINING MONEY ON THE RICH: House Gives $334 Billion Tax Break to 25 Richest Americans http://www.foreffectivegov.org...The day after ‪#‎TaxDay, House Republicans just passed a $269 billion tax cut so the children of the wealthiest .2% of Americans can get inheritance without paying taxes. This is naked robbery: collect taxes from working people and the very next day give it away to spoiled brats who don't work. SHARE toSHAME them!The Shrinking Middle Class, Mapped State by State http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/re...

GOVERNORS THAT ARE KILLING THE MIDDLE CLASSKansas: Tax Cuts For the Rich Made Kansas Broke — So Now Republicans Move toRaise Taxes on the Poor This is from a state that has a law making it illegal for poor people to go to swimming pools. http://www.alternet.org/news-a...

Wisconsin Has Seen Largest Middle-Class Decline Of Any State, Study Finds Economist Says De-Unionization, Recession, Erosion Of Manufacturing Are Factorshttp://www.wpr.org/node/739456

More Nails in the Coffin of the Middle Class: 5 Things That Could Make LifeEven Worse for Most Americans Unless the U.S. changes course economically, theworst may be yet to come. http://www.alternet.org/econom...

4. The Privatization of Medicare and Social Security: A Recipe for Disaster

5. Savvy Economic Voices Warn: Another Major Banking Crash Is a StrongPossibility

Posted by Concerned50 on 2015-04-27 16:14:19

The reason not to tax the "rich" is that, to get any meaningful amount of money for further bloating government freebie-moochies, you have to tax the middle class as well.

The OECD has just released a study showing that in all member countries the % of tax increases had exceeded the % of wage increases for the years 2010-2014. With no changes in tax law, the "progressive" income tax simply does this. Thus the working class pays.

Even in communist societies, which the author probably favors, the Putins become billionaires and working people pay for it. In the USA, the Congress passes loop holes to reward big campaign donors. Obama does and Hillary will.

Posted by Bob Fritz on 2015-04-27 09:19:13

On the rich and taxes, I think there are too many loop holes for those that make a lot of money. How about them living on $1,400 a month without the gov't credit card?. They have forgot how it is or have never been there before.Their money (salary) for one is way to high, even after they are out of office with their retirement. Lower their wages, and let them retire like the normal people do. Use the same system we have. Nothing free. Get a job after their stunt in Washington. Get S/S like the normal and stop (still) living off our tax money. Not some retirement they in Washington have made up. Stop using OUR S/S for anything except what we put in, not use it for every Tom, Dick and Harry that they feel like needs it. Why give any S/S to anyone that has no put any money into it..Stop with these loopholes that let them HIDE money. On and while I am on money, put a limit on how much money can be raised and spent on elections. JUST SAYING!!!!